CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 134(RES) "An Act relating to the terms and conditions of commercial passenger vessel permits for the discharge of graywater, treated sewage, and other wastewater; establishing a science advisory panel on wastewater treatment and effluent quality in the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an effective date." 10:22:00 AM Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT work draft 26-LS0570\D, Bullard, 4/14/09. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, spoke about the legislation and the Committee Substitute (CS). He explained that the CS eliminates five words. He revealed that the last modification addresses the quality of water discharged from the ships into Alaska waters. He informed that the CS includes a six year sunset and allows a scientific panel to meet every three years in a six year period rather than every two. 10:24:17 AM LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, testified on SCSCSHB 134 (FIN). He informed that the goal is to maintain Alaska's clean water. He expressed appreciation from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) over the last few weeks to work with Representative Harris on the bill. With the bill's passage, DEC will be able to protect Alaska waters while providing temporary relief to the cruise ship industry. One important decision requires the cruise ships to reduce the amount of pollutants in their waste before they discharge it so that they meet state water quality criteria at the point of discharge or as soon as it leaves the vessel. He mentioned a technology conference several months ago sponsored by DEC to review the potential technologies available to treat cruise ship waste. He explained that the conference confirmed that technologies are unavailable at this time to allow cruise ships to consistently meet the point of discharge requirement. He noted that the quality of the ship's effluent is high relative to other dischargers, but they have not yet achieved the goal of the initiative. He explained that the legislation allows the cruise ships additional time (six years) to achieve the goal with interim steps. The steps include a science advisory panel of eleven experts who would work with DEC to review the records that the cruise ship companies present. A report will be presented to the legislature following the conferences. The six year sunset date will be readdressed through the process to assess the necessary time span. 10:28:02 AM Mr. Hartig provided a sectional analysis of the bill. The intent section (Section 1) states the initiative to achieve the at the point of discharge requirements. Section 2 allows "the waiver provision" from the point of discharge requirement stating that cruise ships must meet the requirement except as provided in Section E below the waiver provision. Section 3 eliminates the waiver provision with the idea that Section 2 becomes effective on passage of this act after the six year sunset allowing Section 3 to remove the waiver. 10:29:29 AM Mr. Hartig revealed that Section 4 describes the waiver and how the cruise ship companies comply. The conditions state that the companies must employ the treatment measures that are technologically effective and economically achievable in waste reduction. The waiver can only be granted for three years at a time. With the six year sunset, DEC would issue a new permit in the spring of 2010 followed by the technology conference to review the information from the last three years. 10:33:21 AM Mr. Hardig informed that Section 5 addresses the science advisory panel described earlier. He shared a story about a dilution study assisted by a science panel. Representatives from various interested groups comprise the panel, particularly from coastal groups with interest in water quality matters. Subsection B under Section 5 described the reports presented to the legislature from DEC with input from the science panel. The reports allow the legislature to assess the science panel's findings prior to issuing the new three year permit. He noted the final report due 2015 allowing the sunset provision to "kick in" or to take other action if necessary. 10:35:05 AM Mr. Hartig noted that the sunset provisions are contained in Section 7 and 8. Section 8 provides that Sections 3 and 7 take effect December 31, 2015. Senator Ellis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1: Page 3, line 11 Insert after "using" "economically feasible" Page 3, line 13 Delete "and economically feasible" Page 3, line 18 Insert after "use of" "economically feasible" Page 3, lines 19-20 Delete "and economically feasible" Page 4, line 29 Insert after "additional" "economically feasible" Page 4, lines 30-31 Delete "and economically feasible" Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Senator Ellis explained the amendment. He clarified that the amendment does technically comport and is accurate for the finance CS. This amendment makes small but important language changes to the bill. He explained that the current language requires DEC to impose cruise ship waste water technologies that are both technologically effective and economically feasible. Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. 10:37:50 AM Senator Olson asked about infective particles in the discharge such as living viruses. Representative Harris asked for clarification of the question. Senator Olson asked if particles such as living viruses and bacteria are neutralized. His question was whether these bacteria and viruses are discharged into the water from the cruise ship. Mr. Hartig stated that when a cruise ship company applies for a permit, they must disclose the content of their waste. The DEC then reviews the application and compares the data with state water quality standards including provisions to protect human health. If some portion of the data does not meet the standard, DEC sets a permit limit or other conditions that preclude or limit the discharge of that particular pollutant. A cruise ship's permit includes a list of prohibitions. Senator Olson asked about ballast water. Mr. Hartig stated that ballast water is not addressed in this legislation, which only concerns water discharged from the ships. 10:40:47 AM Co-Chair Stedman opened public testimony. CHIP THOMA, PRESIDENT, RESPONSIBLE CRUISING IN ALASKA, testified in support of HB 134. He maintained that discharge from the cruise ships is caustic. He noted that the soap and other products discharged are the reason for the caustic discharge. He addressed the six year sunset based on the year 2009. He compared the difference between the federal standards and the sunset. He announced that Princess and Holland America cruise lines have serious problems with the piping on board the ships. The other cruise ship lines operating in Alaska are close to achieving full water quality standards as defined by the 2010 limits. Only Princess and Holland America have refused to exchange their pipes, which is the stem root of the problem. He opined that the sunset could be shorter while remaining effective. 10:44:23 AM JOE GELDOHOF, LAW OFFICE OF J.W. GELDHOF, testified in support of HB 134. He noted that he was one of the principle authors of the initiative that became law in 2006. He complimented the compromises in this legislation. He opined that the bill was acceptable to industry and environmentalists alike. BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, VICE PRESIDENT, PRINCESS TOURS (testified via teleconference) in support of HB 134. He commended the process and the time given to work on the issue with the science panel. He stated that the point of discharge component is unfair to the cruise industry. He stated that the allegations regarding the replacement of copper piping are not true. The allegations result from accusations that Princess Cruise Line has older ships and he stated that this is not true. He stated that the piping on the Princess cruise ships is comprised of stainless steel and not copper. 10:49:08 AM JENNIFER GIBBENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUNDKEEPER, CORDOVA (testified via teleconference), in support of the legislation. She opined that the sunset granted was generous. She encounters many citizens concerned about the clean water issue. She stated that she can view the issue from both environmental and tourism standpoints. She opined that the legislation was crafted in a fair and generous fashion including an important deadline. 10:51:12 AM SCSCSHB134 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.